[Values-ethics] FW: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF

[conchita poncini]

I agree with Max - haste makes waste and indeed it is cross cutting and his idea is very valid to make a compendium-

Due to a major surgery and illness have been out of touh . 

regards

conchita     


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Max Senges 
  To: values-ethics at wsis-cs.org 
  Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 7:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [Values-ethics] FW: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF


  Hi Laina and all,

  I do not think we can (should) produce a statement in some hours... I do think that we could and should think about what this caucus wants to contribute to the IGF?

  From what I have learned about our constituency and history I understand that we add a ethical (meta-physical/spiritual) perspective driven by a shared idealism.

  As such, and as said before, our approach is cross-cutting and paramount to 'practical Internet governance'. Therefore i wonder whether there is interest to prepare one or a collection of statements outlining different perspectives on the ethical dimension and the role of values in cyberspace. I think a collection of texts from the different spiritual and cultural groups would be a very interesting compendium and would serve two purposes 1) the theme of the ethical/religious/meta-physical role of cyberspace would be discussed inside and amongst the participants of the communities that have participants in this caucus and 2) the result would represent a first overview of the different perspectives and hence represent a good basis for finding common ground and program. What do you think?

  I would be motivated to contribute and help coordinate

  my 2 cents
  max  



  Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: 
 
Dear Max, Liberato and team,

Should the values and ethics caucus also work on a paper submission?

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:05 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF

Hi all,

Please find attached a draft proposal, still submitted for comments to the
HR caucus. Some changes will probably occur before sending late today the
proposal to IGF. Your comments are also welcome (Stephane Bortzmeyer will
recognize his idea - and some of his words, with permission:) - of sticking
to the basics: IGF should only discuss issues needing mandatory governance).

I'm sorry to jump in the discussion so late - due to work overload -, but I
would really like to draw your attention to the fact that one of the
proposals circulated on this list ("internet content filtering and free
expression", posted by Milton), may be _very_ dangerous and
counterproductive, though well intentioned.

I do share the idea that there is a need to develop 'ethical'  
guidelines for Internet companies, when there is no possibility to use
legislation/public policy. In fact, I've even myself made this kind of
recommendation at a workshop on racism and the internet organized by the
OHCHR, as a followup to the Durban conference (see
http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=127 if interested). I
entirely agree that this should be extended to companie that sells filtering
software to non democratic governments (cf. the study conducted by the
OpenNet Initiative, http:// www.opennetinitiative.net/), in the framework of
a new set of "Corporate social responsibility" rules (till now, CSR is
rather applied to compliance with labor rights) that should be pushed with
some friendly (on this issue) governments as a start.

However, proposing this in the IGF framework will certainly open the way to
a definition of "ethical content", "acceptable by all in the whole world"
allowed on the Internet. Many people genuinely think that this would be a
good idea, because of the problem of competence of jurisdiction, etc.
Remember the Mahomet cartoons ? Ever thought of "harmful content for minors"
? Such proposal immediately lead to a list of "inappropriate content" that
may be filtered for ethical reasons. And, believe it or not, such lists are
not pushed only by governments.

I think we should keep in mind that, while IGF mandate is rather centred on
discussing and framing issues, with no actual decisive power, this forum
will be considered as a place of negociation for governements, whether we
like it or not. We should then be cautious when formulating our proposals.

This is the reason why the HR caucus proposal doesn't include FoE as a theme
by itself. It rather proposes to establish a task force on FoE, privacy and
the rule of law (pls read it in the attached proposal).

Best,
Meryem

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
  
  _______________________________________________ Values-ethics mailing list Values-ethics at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/values-ethics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/values-ethics/attachments/20060402/b8878630/attachment.html